PSA Justice vs Biblical Justice

[JonC]

How is it not? That's the whole point. There is no way it is not. Those two verses cannot be twisted in any way to avoid the fact of a transfer of our sins.

Do you believe that us bearing Jesus righteousness means that God stripped Him of His righteousness when He laid it on us?

Of course not. But by your logic those passages cannot be twisted in any way to avoid the fact that God removed Jesus' righteousness from Him and put it on us.

The reason that throughout history few viewed that as a transfer from us to Him is the text does not demand it. You ate reading that into the text (it is not there).

Christ is the Lamb that takes away the sins of the World. But Scripture tells us that it is His blood that cleanses from all unrighteousness.

On the cross God was reconciling mankind to Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ. He is this Reconciliation. He is this Propitiation. He is the second Adam.

He bore our sins and we bear His righteousness.

 

[JonC]

I thought you were agreeing with Jesus suffering the punishment for our sins.

I did. Jesus bore our sins and suffered the wages of our sins. "Sin begats death". Jesus had no sin. He died because of our sin.

It was by the grace of God that He might taste death for everybody. Snce the we share in flesh and blood, He also partook of the same, so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free us who were subject to slavery all our lives.

 

[DaveXR650]

Do you believe that us bearing Jesus righteousness means that God stripped Him of His righteousness when He laid it on us?

Of course not. But by your logic those passages cannot be twisted in any way to avoid the fact that God removed Jesus' righteousness from Him and put it on us.

My understanding is that Jesus in no way actually became less righteous because of what he did. But he did have our guilt and penalty put on him. Different theologians put it slightly different but it is very similar, I think, to what you are saying in that he stood in our place, just as if it were us, except, as you said, he was not truly guilty of anything.

This is why I listed those points in the posts above. Many people believe you can't do this, that it would be impossible or illogical. I do think that your argument makes a strong case for something that is another issue in theology even among those who believe in penal substitution, and that is that this logically demands a belief in "imputation" both of Adam's sin to us and Jesus' righteousness to us. And a lot of Christians don't accept this, including of course Roman Catholicism. They believe that this amounts to "legal fiction", which of course if might be, unless the declaration was made by God himself.

 

[JonC]

My understanding is that Jesus in no way actually became less righteous because of what he did.

I don't mean Jesus becoming less righteous because He bore our sins.

You said that the verses about Jesus bearing our sin, about God laying our iniquities on Him has to mean a transfer (sins transferred from us to Him).

If that were true then us bearing His righteousness, God laying His righteousness on us, would have to be God stripping Him of that righteousness and putting it on us.

I am questioning your logic when it comes to the language of those verses as there seems to be some inconsistently.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I believe it means that God laid the sins of man on Jesus.

I cannot assume it means that God took our sins from us and put them on Jesus because we are talking about iniquity rather than material things.

How then do you account for 1 Peter 2:24? Isaiah tells us that the Lord laid our sins upon the Lord Jesus, and Peter tells us that He bore them in His own body, on the tree. The reference to a tree (c.f. Gal. 3:13) tells us that He also bore the curse of our sins.

Also, God lays Christ's righteousness on us now. I do not believe this means God takes Jesus' righteousness away from Him and puts it on us. We bear His righteousness, but He remains righteous.

He bears our sins, but we remain sinners; but nonetheless He is 'the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.' He takes away the blame and the curse of our sin by paying the penalty for it. This is all about our union with Christ - being 'in Christ.' When God looks upon us as Judge, He sees the perfect righteousness of Christ. As Father, of course, He sees our sin and lovingly chastises us for them (Hebrews 12:5-11).

It is Jesus suffering the punishment for our sins.

Penal substitution.

The wages of sin is death. He tasted death once for every man. Since we are human it was necessary for Him to partake of our humanity - our flesh and blood - so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

Nice quote; but how and why does His death destroy the devil? How does it free anyone from the fear of death? Surely, according to your theory, all that is needed is for us to be reborn?

My statement was that Jesus bearing our sins, and us bearing His righteousness, does not mean a transferring from.

Again, He is 'the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world.' God laid our sin upon Him; He bore them and the curse of them, and took them away. That is what the Bible says. It also says that we are 'clothed ... with the garments of salvation' and 'covered [us] with the robe of righteousness' (c.f. Psalm 132:9-10, 16-17, where the reference is to David and and his Messiah).

Yes, the "piercing" or "wounding" does refer to the cross (probably the sum of His suffering, but at least the cross).

Yes, Scripture is clear that Satan is responsible but also that God sent His Son for this purpose. God was offering His Son, sending His Son. It was according to God's predetermined plan.

I think you are giving too much credit to Satan. Apart from the reference in Gen. 3:15, I don't see anywhere else where Satan is held responsible for the death of our Lord. In Matt. 4 and Mark 8:33, Satan is seen attempting to dissuade our Lord from going to the cross

John 3:16 tells us God loved the world by sending His Son (it is how God loved the world). The "so" means "thusly".

Yes, I know. As I said, God bruising the Lord Jesus at the cross was a sign of their love for us.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't mean Jesus becoming less righteous because He bore our sins.

You said that the verses about Jesus bearing our sin, about God laying our iniquities on Him has to mean a transfer (sins transferred from us to Him).

If that were true then us bearing His righteousness, God laying His righteousness on us, would have to be God stripping Him of that righteousness and putting it on us.

I am questioning your logic when it comes to the language of those verses as there seems to be some inconsistently.

I think the way to look at this is to recall the Scapegoat in Lev. 16, esp. v.22. 'The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land....' In the same way, the Lord Jesus bears away our sins. Our sins, or the guilt of them, are transferred to Him and He, having paid the penalty of them, bears them away.

 

[JonC]

How then do you account for 1 Peter 2:24? Isaiah tells us that the Lord laid our sins upon the Lord Jesus, and Peter tells us that He bore them in His own body, on the tree. The reference to a tree (c.f. Gal. 3:13) tells us that He also bore the curse of our sins.

I account for it by believing it. For Christ also suffered for sins once for all time, the just for the unjust, so that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh, but made alive in the spirit.

You are covering passages we both agree with rather than discussing where we disagree.

Do l believe that all we need is to be made new creations, to die to sin and be conformed into the image of God?

Yes. You hit the nail on the head.

But then the question is "how"?

My answer is by the cross. On the cross God was reconciling mankind to Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ. He was not counting the sins of man against them.

The first man, Adam, became a living person. The last Adam was a life-giving spirit. Jesus is this reconciliation.

All that was needed is for us to die and be recreated in the image of Christ.


That is where we differ.

You view the cross as the Father punishing our sins on Jesus instead of us.

I view the cross as God reconciling mankind to Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ.

We would agree - or come close to agreeing - on everything that follows. We differ on justice (righteousness). Where you view this righteousness and reconciliation as the Father punishing sins I view this righteousness and reconciliation as Christ Himself.

 

[JonC]

I think the way to look at this is to recall the Scapegoat in Lev. 16, esp. v.22. 'The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land....' In the same way, the Lord Jesus bears away our sins. Our sins, or the guilt of them, are transferred to Him and He, having paid the penalty of them, bears them away.

I like the imagery of both goats (the one offered to God and the one offered to Azazel). But we interpret the meaning of both differently.

You interpret it according to your theology (you read it into the OT). To be fair, I do as well. We understand the sacrifice system to be shadows of what was to come.

I view the scape goat as representing the dins of Israel, driven out by the people who must guard against its return.

The important part of the sacrifice to God was not the killing of the animal but the application of the blood (the animal was killed outside the Temple but the blood was taken in for cleansing and purification. Christ's blood cleanses us from all unrighteousness.

Where you view Christ's blood as a type of payment (suffering the penalty for sins) I view His blood as cleansing us from sins as life is in the blood (pointing to this re-creation, i.e., He is the Life).

 

[DaveXR650]

I don't mean Jesus becoming less righteous because He bore our sins.

You said that the verses about Jesus bearing our sin, about God laying our iniquities on Him has to mean a transfer (sins transferred from us to Him).

If that were true then us bearing His righteousness, God laying His righteousness on us, would have to be God stripping Him of that righteousness and putting it on us.

Jon, this is where I don't get your pattern of thought. If your argument is that God laying His righteousness on us would have to be God stripping Him of that righteousness and putting it on us - then yes Jesus would be becoming less righteous because He bore our sins. So you do mean Jesus would become less righteous. Which is fine, and that is the argument I posted in post #70, points 7,8,9,10 and 11. I have explained sufficiently that the position of those who hold to PSA is that Jesus in bearing our sin did not actually become a sinful person but bore the guilt and consequences of our sin.

Our argument is that we reject this premise, that Jesus actually became truly guilty and thus a truly sinful person - but that he did actually suffer the guilt and punishment as a sinner and the guilt was because of our sin. We can't have a discussion if we keep circling on this point. My post #70 articulates in a fair way the objections to the transfer of sin and guilt. It is fair because it is word for word the argument made by those against penal substitution, without any editing on my part.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I account for it by believing it.

Well then, I don't think you understand it.
The question is:
1. Did Christ take and bear our sins, God laying them on Him?
2. Did He so take them as to undergo the punishment due in respect of them?
3. Did He do this in our stead?

I think we are agreed on No.1 in the affirmative. I'm sure you will tell me if you disagree.
For the others, I believe they are directly provable from Scripture, and when the month specified by @Salty is concluded at the end of this month, I will open a new thread to show this.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I like the imagery of both goats (the one offered to God and the one offered to Azazel). But we interpret the meaning of both differently.

You interpret it according to your theology (you read it into the OT). To be fair, I do as well. We understand the sacrifice system to be shadows of what was to come.

I interpret it in the same way as the Lord Jesus does. "Search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me.' We should always look to find Christ in all the Scriptures.

 

[DaveXR650]

10. It is ridiculous and wicked to claim that the sins of others could be imputed to an innocent person.

@JonC. I do believe that the principle of "imputation" both of Adam's sin and of our sin to Christ as essential to the concept of PSA. And this I think is the root of some of the pushback by non-Calvinist theologians. You usually don't see this until you start talking about imputed righteousness or Christ's righteousness from his perfectly lived life being imputed to us. More than a few non Calvinist Christians don't like that theology.

11. Even if Christ rendering satisfaction for our sins were possible he did not do so - for the penalty each of us faces is eternal death, but Christ did not literally endure this.

And this next point is back to what @Dave G was questioning. If you go back and look at the discussions earlier in the thread this is the objection raised.
And these are valid and thought out objections. But they are concrete and referenced to particular schools of thought and can be referred back to. I would hope you would own some concrete position so that discussion could have some meaning. Today you sound like you are pretty much in the camp of PSA, with just some questions regarding how it has been taught, which is fine.

 

[JonC]

@JonC. I do believe that the principle of "imputation" both of Adam's sin and of our sin to Christ as essential to the concept of PSA.

I think this depends on how we view imputation.

What I mean is that there is a 15th century error in doctrine through Augustine (an error in a Latin translation which influenced Augustine to view man as sinning with Adam, which influenced the Catholic doctrine of sin). While this error does not exist in translations today it has affected the doctrine of many.

That said, Jesus called Himself the "Son of Man". He is sinless but bore man's sin.

And this I think is the root of some of the pushback by non-Calvinist theologians. You usually don't see this until you start talking about imputed righteousness or Christ's righteousness from his perfectly lived life being imputed to us. More than a few non Calvinist Christians don't like that theology.

Perhaps. It gets hazy when we apply eords like "imputed" (credited) in Romans 4 to other areas. Part of the reason is God imputing (crediting) righteousness to us is imputing based on a future reality (God predestined us to be in His image, to be righteous, to be glorified) while dealing with Adam we are looking back.

Either way (whether we use "imputed" or not) we see our sins laid on Jesus and His righteousness laid on us. God and man are reconciled.

If you go back and look at the discussions earlier in the thread this is the objection raised.
And these are valid and thought out objections. But they are concrete and referenced to particular schools of thought and can be referred back to. I would hope you would own some concrete position so that discussion could have some meaning. Today you sound like you are pretty much in the camp of PSA, with just some questions regarding how it has been taught, which is fine.

I think I have expressed my objections fairly well, but don't we all.

I believe that God laid our sins on Jesus and God lays His righteousness on us; that He bore our sins and we bear His righteousness; that He came in the likeness of men and we will be made in His likeness. So one objection is that God transferred our sins from us to Him. While that is simplistic I do not see it as biblical or logical (as sins are not things to be transferred).

So while I believe that Jesus is the Lamb who takes away the sins of the world I believe this is through His blood cleansing us from all unrighteousness as a second type of Man representing the type man we will be recreated to be (instead of the Father punishing Him for our sins).

 

[JonC]

@DaveXR650

Sorry. I had to step away mid thought.

Here is a short list:

1. I believe God sent His Son as an offering for sins. With PSA I get the picture of God receiving His Son as an offering rather than God sending Him as an offering for our salvation.

2. I believe that God can and does forgive sins. By "forgive" I mean the literal meaning. PSA views God as having to punish sins in order to "forgive" those sins He punished. I cannot hold that view with any degree of intellectual honesty.

3. I believe that it was God's will (or pleasure) to crush Him, to put Him to grief for if He renders Himself an offering the good pleasure of God will prosper in His hand. Where PSA views this as God crushing Him I interpret the passage as it being God's will or predetermined plan to crush Him. I view the cross as Satan crushing His heel.

4. Again, while I believe God offered His Son, that this was in accordance with His predetermined plan, I believe that Jesus experienced death so that through death He might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil. I view Jesus as bearing our sins and tasting death for everybody under our curse and our bondage to break those bonds and so that man and God would be reconciled in Him.

5. I believe that God will judge the world at a future date, that on that day we will be raised incorruptible, be in His image, be righteous and glorified. When God judges the world we will be just, and the law will be fulfilled in us (the law offers life to the righteous, death to the wicked). PSA views the law as demanding punishment regardless of whether man is re-created in Christ's image.

6. I view sins as manifestations or "fruits" of a "mind set on the flesh" (wickedness). A bad tree bears bad fruit. So I do not view it possible for man to be reconciled by God punishing those sins on Christ. One can destroy the bad fruit produced by the bad tree, but the only way the bad tree can exist in a good orchard is for it to be somehow made into a good tree.

7. Because of #6 I view PSA as treating sins far too lightly and too superficially. I belueve we sin because we fall short of God's glory. Sin is deeper than moral offenses. Our very nature is wicked.

8. Because I view PSA as treating sins too lightly I view PSA as treating God and divine justice too lightly.

 

[DaveXR650]

7. Because of #6 I view PSA as treating sins far too lightly and too superficially. I belueve we sin because we fall short of God's glory. Sin is deeper than moral offenses. Our very nature is wicked.

8. Because I view PSA as treating sins too lightly I view PSA as treating God and divine justice too lightly.

First of all I don't have any problem with your beliefs as listed above. They may not be exactly how I would express them but that is of little importance. I do agree that it is a huge problem for us as sinful humans to take sin too lightly. The main thing that attracted me to Calvinist writings was not the precise soteriology or the philosophy of determinism but that in their practical works, which is what I read first, they did not take sin lightly as some of my teachers were doing.

PSA advocates can do that. The church where I went that was doing that was PSA. But there is nothing inherent in PSA that would lead to this. I find this more common in the belief systems of the churches that are rejecting PSA, frankly. But, it is possible to so separate our sins as opposed from us as individuals (hate the sin, love the sinner), to the point where the connection between you and your sin is lost. Usually, PSA advocates are accused by the world of "making too much of sin and the devil and trying to tell everybody what to do".

And, related to this, I do tend to agree with the guys who view PSA as a facet of the atonement, not the whole picture. Even Owen does this if you read all he says regarding atonement. And, if someone who narrows their explanation of the atonement strictly to PSA, while by itself, your concerns may be justified, if they as part of their other essential doctrine fully explain the importance of living a holy life, avoiding sin, the fatal dangers of a mind set on the flesh, the importance of a new birth, a changed nature and unity with Christ, and the eventuality of someday having a glorified and sinless body - well then such concerns should be shown to not be justified. And believe me, the people I read who advocate penal substitution do not take sin lightly.

 

[JonC]

First of all I don't have any problem with your beliefs as listed above. They may not be exactly how I would express them but that is of little importance. I do agree that it is a huge problem for us as sinful humans to take sin too lightly. The main thing that attracted me to Calvinist writings was not the precise soteriology or the philosophy of determinism but that in their practical works, which is what I read first, they did not take sin lightly as some of my teachers were doing.

The main thing that attracted me to Calvinism was soteriology. But I held PSA prior to holding Calvinism, so I already had that view of sin.

I am not saying that Calvinists hold sin lighter than every other group. Some may but some may not.

What you witnessed with your other teachers may or may not have been a reflection of PSA. People and groups are different.

Look at the Puritans, for example. You mentioned the Socinians. The Puritans held a view very similar to their theory of atonement (Abelard's theory) with the exception it was not focused on the atonement but rather discipline to evidence salvation. They held PSA but would be much more concerned with sin than many "prosperity gospel" churches who also hold PSA.


By my objection that PSA takes sin and divine judgment too lightly I mean the doctrine when compared to how I view sin and divine judgment. It is one reason I, personally, object to PSA.

I believe that our sin is too great an offense to be remedied by God punishing those sins on Christ. I am not saying this as a reflection of Jesus' worth, but on the pervasive nature of sin. It goes beyond immoral actions.

I believe that Christ, on the cross, reconciled mankind to God by striking at the "problem" rather than the symptoms. PSA tries to deal with the symptoms.


Steve is a Christian but is also a liar and a thief.

PSA says Steve will escape the punishment to come because on the cross God already punished Jesus for those sins. The problem here is that Steve is still unrighteous and will not enter the kingdom of God.

I see it differently. Steve, if he is saved, is reconciled to God on the basis that Christ is the surety of a new covenant and at Judgment Steve will have been recreated in His image. This starts in this lifetime as we move "from glory to glory", "taking up our crosses daily", in the process of being "refined as one refines precious metal", in the process of being "conformed into the image of Christ".

Sin is a greater problem. It is bad fruit pointing to a bad tree.

 

[DaveXR650]

Steve is a Christian but is also a liar and a thief.

PSA says Steve will escape the punishment to come because on the cross God already punished Jesus for those sins. The problem here is that Steve is still unrighteous and will not enter the kingdom of God.

I think this is indeed taught sometimes, especially nowadays (although the question came up in Romans 6), but it has nothing to do with PSA. My understanding, using "Steve" above, is that he recognizes that he is indeed a liar and a thief. He also understands that he can stop doing that and do so in some degree but cannot atone for his past lying and stealing. This is especially true as he realizes he will indeed stand before a holy God as an unholy sinner who is rightfully judged guilty. PSA teaches him that Christ can forgive sins and has taken the guilt and punishment from Steve and he discovers that God invites him to come to Him through Christ, with no worries that this would be impossible. PSA teaches that, as a result of what Christ has done, Steve can come by faith, which amounts to putting his case in the hands of Christ instead of trying to fix things himself. He has been invited to do so and his realization of his need is his only qualification he brings himself.

There is a fine line between relying upon the work of Christ and presuming upon the work of Christ. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said a good preacher should occasionally be accused of antinomianism. But there is nothing in the teachings of PSA that take sin lightly or encourage loose living.

 

[JonC]

I think this is indeed taught sometimes, especially nowadays (although the question came up in Romans 6), but it has nothing to do with PSA. My understanding, using "Steve" above, is that he recognizes that he is indeed a liar and a thief. He also understands that he can stop doing that and do so in some degree but cannot atone for his past lying and stealing. This is especially true as he realizes he will indeed stand before a holy God as an unholy sinner who is rightfully judged guilty. PSA teaches him that Christ can forgive sins and has taken the guilt and punishment from Steve and he discovers that God invites him to come to Him through Christ, with no worries that this would be impossible. PSA teaches that, as a result of what Christ has done, Steve can come by faith, which amounts to putting his case in the hands of Christ instead of trying to fix things himself. He has been invited to do so and his realization of his need is his only qualification he brings himself.

There is a fine line between relying upon the work of Christ and presuming upon the work of Christ. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said a good preacher should occasionally be accused of antinomianism. But there is nothing in the teachings of PSA that take sin lightly or encourage loose living.

I understand the differences (please don't take it that I am saying PSA fails to recognize that we will be made anew as that is not my intention at all).

I was speaking specifically of the cross. That is where we disagree (in the work of Christ on the cross reconciling man to God, in this righteousness that is man-God in Christ).

I think I mentioned that before, if not with you then with Martin.

I view the cross as finishing the work of redemption and reconciling mankind to God. The focus (to me), therefore, is Christ Himself rather than the Father dealing with our sins via punishment.

PSA often presents the cross as the work of the Father (God punishing our sins laid on Christ to benefit man by resolving a debt of sin). I view the cross as the work of Christ accomplishing the will of the Father by offering Himself to die under the evil that held us in bondage. To me, the cross is the climax of Christ sacrificing Himself, which began with the Incarnation.

But enough for now about my belief. To gain a bit more perspective let's talk about yours.

You present the cross as making it possible for (in our example) Steve to come to faith.

How? What did the Father punishing Jesus for our sins instead of punishing us allow us to come to faith?

 

[DaveXR650]

How? What did the Father punishing Jesus for our sins instead of punishing us do that allows us to come to faith?

I believe that God functions as the righteous judge of everything as one of his roles. Sin must be judged and how and to what extent is determined by God. We can view God as looking at our sin as a debt in the sense that we owe sanctions or penalties to God. We can also view God as looking at our sin as an offense to Him which needs to be amended. But it would be the justice aspect that would require punishment for sin and it would be that aspect that would oppose the idea that "God, if he wanted, could simply forgive since that is what we are required to do".

I view the cross as the work of Christ accomplishing the will of the Father by offering Himself to die under the evil that held us in bondage. To me, the cross is the climax of Christ sacrificing Himself, which began with the Incarnation.

I don't disagree with this at all. What I would add though is the aspect that the evil that holds us in bondage is due to our own sinful nature and our own will. What you say could, not that you mean it that way necessarily, but could be interpreted as we being decent people who are just having to live under an evil and unfair system. Christ rescues us nice folks from all that. I look at it more as my sin and my sinfulness and my unholiness as being the problem - and when you do that penal substitution makes sense.

As far as God requiring justice, I realize some theologians who agree with the idea that God requires punishment for sin disagree on why this is the case. Most agree that there is not any external standard of cosmic justice God has to abide by. But some say He requires justice because he so chooses and some say he requires justice because it is his actual nature and is therefore necessary. And that is what I believe.

 

[percho]

The context is Israel judging its own people.

God tells them that they were wrong for punishing the sons for the sins of the fathers. He forbids them from using a saying. He tells them that the one who sins will die (as opposed to their children).

The word translated "soul" does not appear in the snippet @Martin Marprelate used. It is in the English referring back to God saying that all people belong to Him.

But the context is secular justice (not divine justice).

God introduces divine justice several verses later, stating that the guilty will be punished for their sins unless they repent. If they repent then He will forgive their sins. Likewise, if one does good then turns to doing evil then that good done will not save him from punishment. One must repent, have a new heart, turn from wickedness.



That said, yes - we were freed from the bomdage of death because Christ who had no sin suffered death because of our sin and destroyed the power of the one who holds the power of death.

It is because He was sinless yet died because of our sins that the sting of death was lost.

Excuse me!

And Jehovah God formeth the man -- dust from the ground, and breatheth into his nostrils breath of life, and the man becometh a living creature. [נֶפֶשׁ = soul] Gen 2:7 YLT

V's 16,17 And Jehovah God layeth a charge on the man, [the soul] saying, 'Of every tree of the garden eating thou dost eat; and of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou dost not eat of it, for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.'

The soul that sins, dying it dost die.

It is no different in Ezek as it is in Gen. IMHO